Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

New - fast track review!

Dear Authors,

If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 17, Number 3, 2012

Utilization of cone-beam CT for offline evaluation of target volume coverage during prostate image-guided radiotherapy based on bony anatomy alignment

Materials and methods

Seventeen prostate patients were treated with daily bony anatomy image-guidance. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired once a week immediately after bony anatomy alignment. After the prostate, seminal vesicles, rectum and bladder were contoured, the delivered dose distribution was reconstructed. Target dose coverage was evaluated by the proportion of the CTV encompassed by the 95% isodose. Original plans employed a 1 cm safety margin. Alternative plans assuming a smaller 7 mm margin between CTV and PTV were evaluated in the same way. Rectal and bladder volumes were compared with the initial ones. Rectal and bladder volumes irradiated with doses higher than 75 Gy, 70 Gy, 60 Gy, 50 Gy and 40 Gy were analyzed.

Results

In 12% of reconstructed plans the prostate coverage was not sufficient. The prostate underdosage was observed in 5 patients. Coverage of seminal vesicles was not satisfactory in 3% of plans. Most of the target underdosage corresponded to excessive rectal or bladder filling. Evaluation of alternative plans assuming a smaller 7 mm margin revealed 22% and 11% of plans where prostate and seminal vesicles coverage, respectively, was compromised. These were distributed over 8 and 7 patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Sufficient dose coverage of target volumes was not achieved for all patients. Reducing of safety margin is not acceptable. Initial rectal and bladder volumes cannot be considered representative for subsequent treatment.